MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2254, 19 May 1881, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Thursday, May 19. [Before J. Nugent Wood, Eaq., K.M., and J. Ollivier, and E. Westenra, Eaqs., J.P.’s.] Maliciously Damaging Property.— Alfred Walter Wright appeared to answer a charge of having, on April 19tb, 1881, pulled down part of a house in Lichfield street, of which he is the tenant, the same being the property of Wm. Wilson. Mr Cowlishaw for the prosecution, Mr Stringer for the defendant. Mr Feroeval, a barrister of the Supreme Court, was put in the witness box, ana asked to produce a deed of lease from Wilson to defendant. Witness objected to produce the deed, on the ground that the production of it was intended to injure tho ease of a client of the witness. Witness rood authorities on tho subject. He further objected that he bad a lien on the document for an unsatisfied claim. Mr Oowlisbaw replied to both objections that witness could not bar the production of the document as evidence in a criminal case unless it had been entrusted to the solicitor for tho purpose of defence in the action. Mr Perceval said he merely raised the question to got the ruling of the Court on it. His Worship said the Bench were unanimous in their opinion that the deed should be produced. The ease then proceeded. O. F. Henry deposed to the making of a lease from. Wilson to Wright in January, 1877. A. R. Bloxam, Registrar of Supreme Court, produced the papers in the bankruptcy of Wright, dated March, 1881. He said that Mr Alport had been appointed trustee of the estate, and had not elected to take up the lease aforesaid. H. E. Alport deposed to giving notice to Wilson that the lease would not be accepted, Mr Stringer asked to be informed whither this evidence waa tending. The information said that Wright being a tenant of Wilson for a term of years had done certain things. The evidence led so far showed that Wright having become insolvent, and abandoned the lease, was not a tenant. He submitted that tho information waa bad, and should either he amended or abandoned. Mr Cowlishaw admitted there was a point of law involved, whioh perhaps might bo raised in a higher Court, but ho thought did not lie to be decided on in a preliminary enquiry. Mr Stringer pressed the fact that under the Bankruptcy Act his liability as to the lease ceased on the insolvency. The objection was overruled. Fox, clerk to W. Wilson, stated he knew the bouse occupied by defendant. Mr Wilson distrained on Wright’s goods in February last for rent. Witness then saw the condition of the house. He had again seen it since, and it appeared to have been gutted. Staircase, rafters, lining, grates, flooring, &0., had disappeared; also, the fence of the garden, some fruit trees, a shed, and water-closet. Witness had later still seen a good many of these things on a section at North Opawa. There was a horse there similar to tho one witness had seen with Wright. Cross-examined—Wit-ness said his knowledge of the house in Lichfield street extended only over the last eighteen months. Had never been in tho house before the bailiffs seized the furniture. He then went in to see what furniture there was. Had seen that the upstairs flooring, which had since disappeared, was then nailed to the rafters. Henrietta Chong Ching, wife of a greengrocer in Lichfield street, living in premises formerly rented from Mr Wright, and adjoining his house, stated she knew what the place had been some time ago and what it is now. The place hod lately been stripped. She had soon Wright take a grate out of the setting, and he told her that he was going to sell it. She, subsequently, saw him taking up the uptairs flooring ; it had been nailed down, and he wrenched it up. Witness bad secreted from the bailiff some of defendant’s things. She gavo other evidence ebowing that she had seen defendant pulling down and removing part of the house fittings, &o. He told her that Wilson had done him out of everything, and he had not a penny. He was, he said, turning things into money. Wright had lately asked witness why •he had turned against him ; she replied that that was her business, and he was to 11 never mind.” He asked her last night not to bear too bard on him, and she replied she would not go back on what ehe had already said. He further said she was turning to that “sneak of a Wilson,” who had done him out of about £SOOO, and It was great ingratitude, after what he (defendant) had done for her. Cross-examined—Saw Wright pull down and remove a chimney one night; he was assisted in removing that, the wateroloset, and other things by Fung Nang, some other Chinamen, and a European. F. Jones, a clerk, residing next door to Mr Wright, gave evidence as to Wright having pulled the chimney down, taken fruit trees up, &c. Cross-examined—Had helped Wright to plant some of the trees that had been removed. Knew that Wright had built certain additions to the house. Did not know whether or not he had built the chimney. Thos. Priston, fruiterer, another neighbor of Wright, spoke to tho stripping and removal of things from the house, Arthur Chapman, clerk at Miles and Co.’s, produced document proving that defendant purchased, on March 27tb, 1880, sections 108 and 100, on part of R.B. 48, at North Opawa. [Left sitting.]